Read: March 2021
Inspiration: Heard of the book through a podcast with Adam Grant
Written with the help of ChatGPT, below is a brief summary to understand what is covered in the book.
“Think Again”, published in 2021 by author and professor by Adam Grant, is a book that challenges readers to question their assumptions, opinions, and beliefs, and encourages them to develop a habit of intellectual humility. The book explores the science behind how we form and change our beliefs, and suggests that it is essential to be willing to consider alternative perspectives and to seek out evidence that might challenge our preconceived notions. According to Grant, this approach can help us to be more open-minded, creative, and effective in solving problems and making decisions. He also argues that it is important to be able to admit when we are wrong and to learn from our mistakes. Overall, “Think Again” is a compelling call to action for readers to cultivate a more curious and open-minded approach to the world around them.
Direct from my original book log, below are my unedited notes (abbreviations and misspellings included) to show how I take notes as I read.
Rethinking is hard b/c requires to undo assumptions, majority of times it is better to change test answers contrary to what some say about trusting instinct, think of startups like a scientist–strategies are hypothesis and test and if not supported then adjust, flexible mindset is key–be open to new evidence, see beliefs as a hypothesis you need to test, anton’s sydrome is deficit of self-awareness where oblivious to physical disability but otherwise cognitively well, armchair quarter and impostor syndrome are opposite ends of competence vs confidence balance, dunning-kruger effect is lack of competence leads to more overconfidence, need humility, peak of mount stupid as go from novice to amateur where know enough for confidence to spike, confident humility—recognize flaws but not meek, imposter syndrome can be good—self doubt helps you learn, rethink, not too confident, provides motivation to improve, don’t let opinions become your identity—be flexible and adjust to new info, admitting you’re wrong makes you less wrong as soon as you do it vs sticking it out, when form opinion list out ways could be proven wrong before get too attached, relationship conflict bad but task conflict good, disagreements help make ideas better and rethink more, don’t just conform to HIPPO (highest paid person’s opinion), argue about ideas/opinions bc you care enough, illusion of explanatory depth (less extreme and emotional when asked how and to explain more (asking why gets emotional vs how is better, more evidence not better bc can just make someone dig in against you more, also people latch on to worst of all reasons so more takes away from quality of others, find common ground first, ask questions (“what evidence would change your mind”, “you don’t find any merit at all to this?”), informed audience will find shortcomings so best to acknowledge them first, motivational interviewing—open ended questions, reflective listening and affirm person’s desire to change, guide others do not pressure, listening intensely and curiously evokes inverse charisma (other person is honest, just ask genuine questions and listen), best way to depolarize is top presenting issues as binary with two extremes (introduce complexity and grey areas), climate deniers get tons of press but only 10% of people deny (other 90 range from alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful), after success shouldn’t just bask in it—think about how could have gone wrong and how can make even better (don’t wait til failure to change process and learn), escalation of committment leads us to stay on tracks we don’t like (don’t want to rethink), have career checkups (ask if aspirations have changed, if still learning, if want to pivot), passion can sometimes follow effort (just take job can learn and passion develops), those who focus on happiness a lot often less happy (purpose > happiness for job), rethink daily habits, good process bad outcome is good experiment vs good outcome bad process is luck